Hi,
On 2018-07-07 20:51:56 +0200, David Fetter wrote:
> As to "dual license," that's another legal thicket in which we've been
> wise not to involve ourselves. "Dual licensing" is generally used to
> assert proprietary rights followed immediately by a demand for
> payment. This is a thing we don't want to do, and it's not a thing we
> should be enabling others to do as part of our project. If they wish
> to do that, they're welcome to do it without our imprimatur.
This is pure FUD. Obviously potential results of dual licensing depends
on the license chosen. None of what you describe has anything to do with
potential pieces of dual PG License / Apache 2.0 licensed code in PG, or
anything similar. You could at any time choose to only use /
redistribute postgres, including derivatives, under the rights either
license permits.
I think there's fair arguments to be made that we do not want to go fo
for dual licensing with apache 2.0. Biggest among them that the current
situation is the established practice. But let's have the arguments be
real, not FUD.
Andres
